Basically, she said I don't care what these people think or say, it is what it is, Watch it or not, I got my cheque already, so it doesn't even matter...
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but my biggest issue was actually the main character and the political…
I know exactly what you mean. I've been pointing out these issues from the start, and usually that just gets me attacked by fans who seem more interested in protecting a drama's reputation than discussing what's actually being shown. I've had people tell me I should raise my ratings simply because they like the drama, not because of its actual quality or writing.
That's why I'm glad to see some people openly supporting the concerns I've been raising about this one.
What bothers me is that the story can easily be viewed as a villain story depending on perspective. We have a powerful politician who gives official authority and legal immunity to his own son-in-law through connections. That son-in-law isn't a helpless student or a minor—he's a former soldier and an adult. Then he uses that position to investigate, target, and expose the children of political opponents and other privileged families.
A lot of what we see in the first episode isn't stopping major crimes. It's taking school incidents, teenage mistakes, and conflicts that could often be handled through normal disciplinary systems and turning them into political weapons that can damage the parents. From that angle, it looks less like justice and more like using state power for personal and political gain.
Episode 3 made me even more uncomfortable when it seemed to justify corporal punishment. A female teacher physically hitting a female student on the palm is still a teacher using violence against a child. The scene felt strange because if the context were changed slightly, the same behavior could easily be condemned instead of defended. It almost felt like the drama was deciding in advance who deserves sympathy and who doesn't.
And that's my biggest issue: who gets to decide where the line is? Who decides which students are "bad kids" and which are innocent? Who decides who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? Is it really acceptable to label minors as monsters and argue that they deserve fewer rights or less compassion?
The drama keeps talking about justice, but justice becomes dangerous when people in power get to decide who deserves protection and who doesn't.
And if society is really concerned about accountability, why is that energy so often directed at children while many adult criminals get second chances? There have been cases of convicted offenders serving a few years and later returning to public life and even the entertainment industry. Yet the drama seems far more interested in portraying teenagers as irredeemable threats than asking difficult questions about adults with real power and responsibility.
That's why I can't fully support what the drama is trying to sell. Even when it raises legitimate issues, the way it frames them leaves me with more questions than answers.
they want you to remember that this is about personal revenge of father and son in lawa nepo son in law got law…
The drama openly establishes that the ML receives extraordinary legal authority as an ERPB inspector, a position that comes with powers and protections that ordinary citizens do not have. The problem is that this position is effectively handed to him by his father-in-law, a powerful politician whose motivation is deeply personal revenge for his daughter's death.
That means we're not just talking about favoritism. We're talking about a politician placing his own son-in-law into a powerful government role while knowing that he has a personal vendetta against the people he will be targeting.
What made it even harder for me to accept was the scene where the ML attempts to run over a student with his car. Regardless of how evil that student is, that goes far beyond professional misconduct. Yet the story never seriously addresses the consequences because the ML continues operating under the protection of the same political system that put him there in the first place.
The show spends a lot of time criticizing corruption, abuse of power, and people who believe they are above the law. But when the heroes benefit from political connections, nepotism, and extraordinary legal immunity, the narrative barely questions it.
By the end, it felt less like a story about justice and more like a fantasy where a powerful politician uses the machinery of the state to empower his grieving son-in-law to pursue personal revenge. The villains are held accountable, but the questionable concentration of power at the center of the story is treated as completely justified because the protagonists are "the good guys."
That's what prevented me from fully buying into the drama's message. A system that grants immense authority through nepotism and then shields its holder from accountability would be dangerous regardless of who is using it.
I agree with your core points. And i do wish they had an episode that had the erpb directly face the negative…
I understand your point, and I agree that people can enjoy the drama as a fictional cathartic experience without applying too much real-world logic to it.
My problem is that the drama itself creates contradictions that make it difficult for me to fully support its message. The first episode criticizes a student who abuses power because his father is a powerful politician. But the male lead is also benefiting from political connections and nepotism through his father-in-law. So from my perspective, it feels less like justice defeating privilege and more like one politically connected person defeating another.
That's also why I compare it unfavorably to Taxi Driver. In Taxi Driver, the focus is usually on helping victims who have no other options. Here, the story often feels driven by one man's personal grievances, with students becoming the targets of his anger. The male lead doesn't come across as morally superior to the bullies. He's simply an older, stronger, more skilled person with legal protection and institutional backing.
What bothers me most is the lack of accountability. The drama keeps presenting the male lead and his team as unquestionably correct. What happens if they make a mistake? What if they wrongly identify someone as a bully? There is no trial, no transparency, and no independent oversight. The audience is expected to trust them because the script says they're right.
The legal immunity aspect is also strange to me. We're talking about a team funded by taxpayers, operating under government authority, led by people with political connections, including someone with a history involving violence against a student. Yet whenever legal or ethical concerns are raised, they rarely lead to meaningful consequences.
In the real world, a system like this would be terrifying. If a government-backed group can investigate, judge, and punish minors with little oversight, what's stopping them from targeting an innocent student, relying on false accusations, or abusing their power? Who verifies that their version of justice is actually correct?
That's why I can't see this as a story about justice. To me, it often feels like a story about power. The bullies abuse power, but the heroes do too. The difference is that the drama wants us to cheer for one side while questioning the other.
I can enjoy the action scenes, but the more I think about the underlying system, the harder it is for me to view it as something admirable.
I had high expectations for this drama because of the cast, the director, and especially the premise. While some…
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but my biggest issue was actually the main character and the political implications of his position.
The drama openly establishes that the ML receives extraordinary legal authority as an ERPB inspector, a position that comes with powers and protections that ordinary citizens do not have. The problem is that this position is effectively handed to him by his father-in-law, a powerful politician whose motivation is deeply personal revenge for his daughter's death.
That means we're not just talking about favoritism. We're talking about a politician placing his own son-in-law into a powerful government role while knowing that he has a personal vendetta against the people he will be targeting.
What made it even harder for me to accept was the scene where the ML attempts to run over a student with his car. Regardless of how evil that student is, that goes far beyond professional misconduct. Yet the story never seriously addresses the consequences because the ML continues operating under the protection of the same political system that put him there in the first place.
The show spends a lot of time criticizing corruption, abuse of power, and people who believe they are above the law. But when the heroes benefit from political connections, nepotism, and extraordinary legal immunity, the narrative barely questions it.
By the end, it felt less like a story about justice and more like a fantasy where a powerful politician uses the machinery of the state to empower his grieving son-in-law to pursue personal revenge. The villains are held accountable, but the questionable concentration of power at the center of the story is treated as completely justified because the protagonists are "the good guys."
That's what prevented me from fully buying into the drama's message. A system that grants immense authority through nepotism and then shields its holder from accountability would be dangerous regardless of who is using it.
The ERPB is essentially a small group of unelected individuals deciding who deserves punishment, what punishment they deserve, and then carrying it out themselves. That's not justice; that's vigilantism.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
The ERPB is essentially a small group of unelected individuals deciding who deserves punishment, what punishment they deserve, and then carrying it out themselves. That's not justice; that's vigilantism.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
The ERPB is essentially a small group of unelected individuals deciding who deserves punishment, what punishment they deserve, and then carrying it out themselves. That's not justice; that's vigilantism.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
I feel like you maybe didn’t understand the message of the drama and that you were not up-to-date with Korean…
Since you're asking for a comment you could post, here's a polished counterargument:
I understand your point, and I actually agree with part of it. Students who commit serious crimes such as drug dealing, violent bullying, assault, extortion, or gang activity should face serious consequences. Being a minor should not be a free pass for criminal behavior.
However, my problem with the drama is not that bad students are punished. My problem is who is doing the punishing and how they are doing it.
The ERPB is essentially a small group of unelected individuals deciding who deserves punishment, what punishment they deserve, and then carrying it out themselves. That's not justice; that's vigilantism.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
So my criticism isn't that the show targets bad students. It's that it normalizes the idea that human rights, due process, and legal accountability can be ignored as long as the people being targeted are unpopular. Once you accept that principle, the real question becomes: who gets to decide who's a villain?
I agree with everything that you stated. I started this drama with high expectations because I usually enjoy this…
Calling minor students Monsters to justify there human right volition, and everyone is just happily clapping, or put to less effort to stop them, Ep 3 shows that there new law , give ML immunity against murdering minor kids in school That just pure dictatorship or fascism promotion
Despite Guo Jing’s dedication to his work, his methods are seen as unnecessary, and his pursuit of Huang Rong only deepens his conflict with his superior, who disapproves of both his professional approach and personal life
Why they have any right to say anything about his personal life Are they doctor or gossip aunties
Attempted murder is also crime,
He has legal immunity so he can kill and walk away without consequences
Watch it or not, I got my cheque already, so it doesn't even matter...
That's why I'm glad to see some people openly supporting the concerns I've been raising about this one.
What bothers me is that the story can easily be viewed as a villain story depending on perspective. We have a powerful politician who gives official authority and legal immunity to his own son-in-law through connections. That son-in-law isn't a helpless student or a minor—he's a former soldier and an adult. Then he uses that position to investigate, target, and expose the children of political opponents and other privileged families.
A lot of what we see in the first episode isn't stopping major crimes. It's taking school incidents, teenage mistakes, and conflicts that could often be handled through normal disciplinary systems and turning them into political weapons that can damage the parents. From that angle, it looks less like justice and more like using state power for personal and political gain.
Episode 3 made me even more uncomfortable when it seemed to justify corporal punishment. A female teacher physically hitting a female student on the palm is still a teacher using violence against a child. The scene felt strange because if the context were changed slightly, the same behavior could easily be condemned instead of defended. It almost felt like the drama was deciding in advance who deserves sympathy and who doesn't.
And that's my biggest issue: who gets to decide where the line is? Who decides which students are "bad kids" and which are innocent? Who decides who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? Is it really acceptable to label minors as monsters and argue that they deserve fewer rights or less compassion?
The drama keeps talking about justice, but justice becomes dangerous when people in power get to decide who deserves protection and who doesn't.
And if society is really concerned about accountability, why is that energy so often directed at children while many adult criminals get second chances? There have been cases of convicted offenders serving a few years and later returning to public life and even the entertainment industry. Yet the drama seems far more interested in portraying teenagers as irredeemable threats than asking difficult questions about adults with real power and responsibility.
That's why I can't fully support what the drama is trying to sell. Even when it raises legitimate issues, the way it frames them leaves me with more questions than answers.
That means we're not just talking about favoritism. We're talking about a politician placing his own son-in-law into a powerful government role while knowing that he has a personal vendetta against the people he will be targeting.
What made it even harder for me to accept was the scene where the ML attempts to run over a student with his car. Regardless of how evil that student is, that goes far beyond professional misconduct. Yet the story never seriously addresses the consequences because the ML continues operating under the protection of the same political system that put him there in the first place.
The show spends a lot of time criticizing corruption, abuse of power, and people who believe they are above the law. But when the heroes benefit from political connections, nepotism, and extraordinary legal immunity, the narrative barely questions it.
By the end, it felt less like a story about justice and more like a fantasy where a powerful politician uses the machinery of the state to empower his grieving son-in-law to pursue personal revenge. The villains are held accountable, but the questionable concentration of power at the center of the story is treated as completely justified because the protagonists are "the good guys."
That's what prevented me from fully buying into the drama's message. A system that grants immense authority through nepotism and then shields its holder from accountability would be dangerous regardless of who is using it.
My problem is that the drama itself creates contradictions that make it difficult for me to fully support its message. The first episode criticizes a student who abuses power because his father is a powerful politician. But the male lead is also benefiting from political connections and nepotism through his father-in-law. So from my perspective, it feels less like justice defeating privilege and more like one politically connected person defeating another.
That's also why I compare it unfavorably to Taxi Driver. In Taxi Driver, the focus is usually on helping victims who have no other options. Here, the story often feels driven by one man's personal grievances, with students becoming the targets of his anger. The male lead doesn't come across as morally superior to the bullies. He's simply an older, stronger, more skilled person with legal protection and institutional backing.
What bothers me most is the lack of accountability. The drama keeps presenting the male lead and his team as unquestionably correct. What happens if they make a mistake? What if they wrongly identify someone as a bully? There is no trial, no transparency, and no independent oversight. The audience is expected to trust them because the script says they're right.
The legal immunity aspect is also strange to me. We're talking about a team funded by taxpayers, operating under government authority, led by people with political connections, including someone with a history involving violence against a student. Yet whenever legal or ethical concerns are raised, they rarely lead to meaningful consequences.
In the real world, a system like this would be terrifying. If a government-backed group can investigate, judge, and punish minors with little oversight, what's stopping them from targeting an innocent student, relying on false accusations, or abusing their power? Who verifies that their version of justice is actually correct?
That's why I can't see this as a story about justice. To me, it often feels like a story about power. The bullies abuse power, but the heroes do too. The difference is that the drama wants us to cheer for one side while questioning the other.
I can enjoy the action scenes, but the more I think about the underlying system, the harder it is for me to view it as something admirable.
The drama openly establishes that the ML receives extraordinary legal authority as an ERPB inspector, a position that comes with powers and protections that ordinary citizens do not have. The problem is that this position is effectively handed to him by his father-in-law, a powerful politician whose motivation is deeply personal revenge for his daughter's death.
That means we're not just talking about favoritism. We're talking about a politician placing his own son-in-law into a powerful government role while knowing that he has a personal vendetta against the people he will be targeting.
What made it even harder for me to accept was the scene where the ML attempts to run over a student with his car. Regardless of how evil that student is, that goes far beyond professional misconduct. Yet the story never seriously addresses the consequences because the ML continues operating under the protection of the same political system that put him there in the first place.
The show spends a lot of time criticizing corruption, abuse of power, and people who believe they are above the law. But when the heroes benefit from political connections, nepotism, and extraordinary legal immunity, the narrative barely questions it.
By the end, it felt less like a story about justice and more like a fantasy where a powerful politician uses the machinery of the state to empower his grieving son-in-law to pursue personal revenge. The villains are held accountable, but the questionable concentration of power at the center of the story is treated as completely justified because the protagonists are "the good guys."
That's what prevented me from fully buying into the drama's message. A system that grants immense authority through nepotism and then shields its holder from accountability would be dangerous regardless of who is using it.
a nepo son in law got law immunity so he can kill...
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
I understand your point, and I actually agree with part of it. Students who commit serious crimes such as drug dealing, violent bullying, assault, extortion, or gang activity should face serious consequences. Being a minor should not be a free pass for criminal behavior.
However, my problem with the drama is not that bad students are punished. My problem is who is doing the punishing and how they are doing it.
The ERPB is essentially a small group of unelected individuals deciding who deserves punishment, what punishment they deserve, and then carrying it out themselves. That's not justice; that's vigilantism.
The main character is portrayed as someone carrying personal trauma from the death of his lover, who was killed by a student. That alone raises questions about whether he can make impartial decisions. Why should one man with a personal grudge against delinquent students be trusted to judge and punish minors?
And who decides which teenager should be treated as an adult? In a democracy, that decision is supposed to be made through courts, laws, and due process—not by a government task force acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The show also gives the main character extraordinary powers. He is an ex-special forces operative who routinely beats students, operates with legal immunity, and is protected by political connections. His father-in-law uses his government position to place him in the role and shield him from consequences. That looks less like justice and more like nepotism and abuse of authority.
What happens if he makes a mistake? What if he severely injures or even kills an innocent student? If he has immunity from the law, who holds him accountable?
Even when the targets are genuinely bad students, physical violence and extrajudicial punishment are still far beyond what most democratic societies consider acceptable. A student selling drugs should be arrested and prosecuted, not beaten up by a government-sponsored vigilante.
The show also seems uninterested in addressing the underlying causes of school violence, bullying, or youth crime. Instead, it presents violence as a satisfying solution. Episode 3 especially gives the impression that if the results are desirable, the methods don't matter.
That's what many people find troubling. The message starts to resemble: "The system is broken, therefore we need a strongman above the law to fix it." Historically, that kind of thinking is associated with authoritarianism, not democracy.
So my criticism isn't that the show targets bad students. It's that it normalizes the idea that human rights, due process, and legal accountability can be ignored as long as the people being targeted are unpopular. Once you accept that principle, the real question becomes: who gets to decide who's a villain?
Ep 3 shows that there new law , give ML immunity against murdering minor kids in school
That just pure dictatorship or fascism promotion
Why they have any right to say anything about his personal life
Are they doctor or gossip aunties
I am not song hye kyo or gong Yoo 😭